DISQUS

Older_Wiser · 1 year ago

Look, I said at the beginning: Henry Paulson was the CEO of Goldman Sachs. And Congress trusted him?

I would NEVER have done so. Is it any wonder he wanted that bailout done so fast?

Think, people.

Kozar · 1 year ago

What was Paulson thinking? the same thing he has been thinking for years at GS and the same thing these 'money managers' have been thinking for years and years.
"Gotta raise more Capital"

well,they did,,,and now we get what we get,,screwed

pol · 1 year ago

What was Paulson thinking?"

"Let's do one more screw job on the American public -- for the road!"

iamwil · 1 year ago

I guess "pay(ing) shareholders dividends while they are being propped up on life support via taxpayer money" must be the back of Adam Smith's invisible hand.

ruthlessgravity · 1 year ago

A lot of institutional investors can only hold stocks that pay a dividend.

If we forced them to eliminate their dividend, then those mutual funds and pension funds would have had to liquidate their positions in the bank....and that would have had the problem much worse because they would've been selling into the bear raid that occurred at the time of the bailout.

joelk · 1 year ago

some banks were forced to take the cash (e.g. Wells Fargo). you can't force a healthy bank to take a crap ton of money and then insist it can't pay its dividends. the banks that were in trouble however ... that's a different analysis.

sputnik · 1 year ago

Add my voice to the "Paulson knew EXACTLY what he was doing" chorus.
The fuckers have no concern for us. They just want their piece.

Bluestocking · 1 year ago

I don't know how much more proof we really need that Wall Street cares only for Wall Street and that "trickle-down economics" is and has always been an elaborate swindle for the most part. This is because the majority of human beings, if given the freedom to do so with impunity, will choose to act in self-interest rather than behave ethically -- which is why neither people nor organizations can be trusted implicity and left entirely to their own devices. Someone has to hold Wall Street's feet in the fire!

Let's face it, folks -- there aren't exactly a whole lot of people among the rank-and-file who own large amounts of banking stocks and would therefore receive dividends, which means that most if not all of the bailout money being put towards dividends is staying on Wall Street and not helping Main Street at all. Big surprise...NOT!

cereal · 1 year ago

I guess Paulson is the real "redistributor in Chief," huh?

jeffg166 · 1 year ago

The hand writing is on the wall for the right wing. They know they won't be back in power for 60 years. Having not been in power for 60 they made up for lost time looting the Treasury. This is yet another example.

MNUSA · 1 year ago

Banks that were failing should not be allowed to pay dividends. But that might anger the shareholders, and who knows, they might turn on management and the board of directors.

EmGD · 1 year ago

"Boy this would be a great opportunity to funnel billions to my friends in an extremely shad manner with little to no oversight!" Am I close?

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

cassandra_m · 1 year ago

Hmm. Barry Ritholz reported that these bailed out banks were supposed to be forbidden to payout dividends. Even cites the piece of regulation.

freshpaint · 1 year ago

Would be fine if dividends actually trickled down into the 401K plans that have been brutalized. That would be spreading around the wealth, tho. Which is bad.

Methuselah · 1 year ago

Gee, I guess when Paulson threatened members of Congress that martial law would have to be declared if they did not pass the original bailout legislation NOW OR ELSE, they must've been referring to shareholders rioting in the streets if they didn't get their dividend.

Why are these people not yet in jail?